State Parks Commission to Decide on Management of Bridgeport State Park

[bigtex]

Bridgeport State Park along the shore of Rufus Woods is owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers but it managed under a operating lease by WA State Parks. The lease is to expire on September 30, 2015 and the State Parks and Recreation Commission will decide at it's March commission meeting on what to do with the park.

There a couple of options currently facing this park. Both Parks and the Colville Tribe have interest in managing the park. Under federal law since there are two bidders the lease would go up to bid between State Parks and the Tribe. State Parks staff has been meeting with the Colville Tribe to pursue some type of a joint management agreement over the park.

So the State Parks and Recreation Commission will have several choices to choose from:
1- Continue with management of the park and prepare for a bidding process against the Colville Tribe
2- Pursue a joint management agreement with the Colville Tribe
3- This hasn't been discussed much, but a total abandonment of management of Bridgeport State Park which will essentially leave it to the US Army Corps of Engineers to decide who/how the park will be managed.

[bigtex]

State Parks has decided to go forward with management of the park, if the Colville Tribe also wants to pursue management then a bidding process will begin this summer.

The justification for State Parks follows:

In formulating a recommendation on seeking a renewed lease for Corps lands at Bridgeport State Park staff evaluated the extent to which the park advances the Commission’s adopted mission and vision. Staff also considered financial implications, as well as public support for a renewed lease.

Staff believes that Bridgeport State Park, while not a flagship park, nevertheless hosts an important assemblage of overnight and water-based day use recreation opportunities, together providing an important gateway and connection for Washingtonians to the natural world. In this way Bridgeport is in fact typical of the majority of state parks, it suitably advances the Commission’s mission and vision, and is therefore appropriate to retain in the Commission’s park inventory.

In 2013, Bridgeport State Park had 1.6 FTE assigned to it with total revenue of $106,000 and direct park level expenditures of $138,700. While not quite revenue neutral as an individual park, a cost recovery rate of 75% is relatively high among parks. From a financial standpoint, Bridgeport should be seen as providing a good value for the agency’s investment of operating funds.

Staff believes that the public is generally satisfied and supportive of the agency’s operation of Bridgeport State Park and therefore recommends that the Commission authorize the Director to complete the required Corps application forms to seek a new 25-year lease of federal lands within Bridgeport State Park. The agency’s lease proposal should – assuming sufficient state funding levels – generally commit to continuing operation of the park at current service levels and maintaining facilities and infrastructure at standard commensurate with other Commission operated parks.

Staff also recommends that additional economic analysis and land use planning (CAMP) be undertaken for Bridgeport State Park as soon as practical and as resources permit. Future development planning should consider addition of cabins or other amenities to enhance public service and potentially generate additional park revenue. It remains the intent of staff to work with the Colville Tribe and other local stakeholders to develop partner relationships that will meet the lease objectives set forth by the Corps and to otherwise optimize public recreation benefit of Bridgeport State Park.

[Knocker of rocks]

What is so bad about letting the Colville operate the park?

[bigtex]

What is so bad about letting the Colville operate the park?

I'm with you on this one.

Going out on a whim here. Reading the full report it says that State Parks over time has purchased about 350 acres bordering the park, so you essentially have USACE lands managed by State Parks bordered by actual State Park lands. My guess is they don't want to lose the lease with USACE which will essentially mean State Parks has no use for the State Park owned lands. 

It would be interesting to see if they didn't own those lands if they would essentially back out of the management of the park. Of course, you can always say that State Parks could offer to sell the state owned lands to the tribe 

[Special T]

This is an interesting discussion. I only wish that they were doing this kind of thinking for each state park. 75% ROE is pretty damn good. State parks should be figuring out how to make all parks closer to that goal.

[jahoffy]

I would guess they do better than most parks because of their relatively small size, and the use of volunteer camp hosts who help keep the staff costs low.  What a great place to camp and enjoy the outdoors. Let's hope they figure out a way to keep it open and viable! 

[Special T]

If you look at the state parks that have a good ROE (return on expences) many of them will be on the east side. Those that are on the west side will have LOTS of camping available in comparison to day use. The main reason being is that people are willing to PAY to park thier camper/motorhome for a camping with amenties experience. People are NOT willing to pay for day use. IMO day use has a larger impact. Also the fact is that there are lots of seasonal jobs on the E side and it is much harder to get people to fill those on the west side. I would love to see the list of those parks listed by ROE.

[hrd2fnd]

If you look at the state parks that have a good ROE (return on expences) many of them will be on the east side. Those that are on the west side will have LOTS of camping available in comparison to day use. The main reason being is that people are willing to PAY to park thier camper/motorhome for a camping with amenties experience. People are NOT willing to pay for day use. IMO day use has a larger impact. Also the fact is that there are lots of seasonal jobs on the E side and it is much harder to get people to fill those on the west side. I would love to see the list of those parks listed by ROE.

having used the state parks here on the rest side, day use imo in the majority of parks from salt water to birch bay are used heavily. Try finding a camping spot at the last moment good luck.  If you don't register at what I think is after the 1st of year (I maybe wrong on the date) you would be lucky to reserve one maybe a month out. 

This just my experience over the last 25 years of using the state parks. Sometimes the buying and selling of land for the parks can be and bad.

[Special T]

What that should tell us is that State parks needs to EXPAND camping opportunities to increase their ROE each park COULD add X amount of unimproved camping spots for very little $ and still book solid.

[hrd2fnd]

I would be in favor of more land purchases on this side of the hill.  Take a drive through a park this summer and you will see 90% or more of the plates are from Canada.

[Special T]

All the more reason to either adjust the rates up slightly and/or add more spots.

[hrd2fnd]

All the more reason to either adjust the rates up slightly and/or add more spots.

None resident rates would be nice as would more developed sites.

[bigtex]

All the more reason to either adjust the rates up slightly and/or add more spots.

They increased rates in 2013